OBINEGBO & ORS v. I.G.P & ORS (2020)

OBINEGBO & ORS v. I.G.P & ORS

(2020)LCN/15390(CA)

In The Court Of Appeal

(ENUGU JUDICIAL DIVISION)

On Friday, September 25, 2020

CA/E/415/2017

RATIO

CRIMINAL LAW: FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS: WHETHER AN APPLICANT MAY BE ENTITLED TO COMPENSATION FOR AN UNLAWFUL ARREST LASTING FOR ONLY A SHORT WHILE

The law is sacrosanct that an unlawful arrest no matter how short entitles the applicant to compensation. See ARULOGUN V. C. O. P, LAGOS STATE & ORS. (2016) LPELR-40190 (CA) AT 19-20 (E-A), SKYE BANK V. NJOKU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40447 (CA). In the instant case, in addition to the arrest and detention of the appellants being unlawful, they were subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment. The Court below was wrong when it held that the appellant failed to establish a violation of any of their fundamental rights.
Section 46(1) of the Constitution provides that:
“(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter.”

Issue 2 is resolved in favour of the appellant. Ubi Jus Ubi Remedium. See JIM-JAJA V. C. O. P, RIVER STATE & ORS (2012) LPELR-20621 (SC). Once the Court comes to the conclusion that the fundamental right of a person has been infringed, he is entitled to compensation in form of damages. One of the factors which a Court should take into consideration in the award of damages for unlawful arrest and detention is the behaviour displayed by the respondents in arresting the appellants. See F. B. N. & ORS. V. A. G. FEDERATION & ORS. (2018) LPELR-46084 (SC) where the Supreme Court Per AUGIE, J.S.C AT 53 (A-D)held that:
“In fixing an amount for the infringement of fundamental rights, the following factors inter alia may be taken into consideration – see Arulogun V. C.O.P., Lagos State & Ors. (2016) LPELR-40190(CA) (a) The frequency of the type of violation in recent times; (b) The continually deprecating value of the Naira; (c) The motivation for the violation; (d) The Status of the Applicant; (e) The undeserved embarrassment meted out to the Applicant including pecuniary losses; and (f) The conduct of the Parties generally, particularly the Respondent.” PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW: WHETHER IT IS THE POLICE OR THE INFORMANT THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ACTS DONE AFTER THE REPORT OF AN ALLEGED CRIME

POWER OF THE POLICE: WHETHER THE POLICE ARE VESTED WITH POWERS TO SETTLE LAND DISPUTES

There is no doubt that the powers of the police does not extend to settlement of land dispute. The contents of the letter clearly show that the police allowed itself to be used to settled scores and for display of ego by both parties. If truly the 1st appellant demolished houses on the land in dispute in disobedience of the Court order which restrained him from further entry into the land during the pendency of the suit, the proper forum to lay the complaint is the Court which made the order in the first place. I am of the firm view that 1st – 6th respondents failed to properly scrutinize the letter to discover the true intention of the writers which was to use the police to intimidate the respondents as they had been doing to each other. The police ought not to have allowed itself to be caught up in the mess created by the parties. See EKPU & ORS. V. A. G. (FEDERATION) & ORS. (1998) 1 HRLRA, 391 AT 419-420, where it was held that:
In ONAH V. OKENWA & ORS (2010) LPELR-4781 (CA) AT 29-30 (A-A), this Court per Nwodo, JCA held that:
“Every person in Nigeria who feels an offence has been committed has a right to report to the Nigerian Police Force. Once that right of complaint to the police who are custodians of order in the society is exercised, the right shifts to the police to exercise their statutory powers under 4 of the Police Act. The power conferred on the Police under the Police Act includes investigation, arrest, interrogation, search and detention of any suspect. In the process of investigation, the Police is enjoined to look at the facts contained in the complaint carefully before proceeding to arrest or detain the persons complained against. This is the rationale for shifting the onus of justification of arrest and detention on the Police. Once an Applicant aggrieved that his fundamental right under the Constitution has been infringed commences an action in Court and establishes the claim on arrest and detention, the onus shifts to the Police. Therefore, whatever action the Police takes, once a complaint has been made to them must be based on facts which are reasonable and justifiable. That calls for accountability by the Police for actions taken.” PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

CRIMINAL LAW: ARREST AND DETENTION: BURDEN OF PROOF

The law is sacrosanct that the burden of proving the arrest and detention of a person is on the party who assert that he was arrested and detained. Once that burden is satisfactorily discharged or the arrest and detention of a person is admitted by the arresting authority, the burden shifts on the arresting authority to prove that the arrest and detention is lawful. See ENE & ORS. V. BASSEY & ORS. (2014) LPELR-23524 (CA) AT 23-24 (F-B), NNORUGA & ORS. V. ENIOWO & ORS. (2015) LPELR-24273 (CA) AT 15-16 (E-A). The respondents having admitted that the appellants were arrested and detained, the burden was on them to prove that the arrest was lawful. PER MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A.

POWER OF THE POLICE: POWER TO INVESTIGATE, APPREHEND AND DETAIN A PERSON

The powers of police to investigate, apprehend and detain a person upon suspicion of having committed a crime are both statutory and Constitutional. Sections 4 and 24 of the Police Act provide that:
4. The police shall be employed for the prevention and detection of crime, the apprehension of offenders, the preservation of law and order, the protection of life and property and the due enforcement of all laws and regulations with which they are directly charged, and shall perform such military duties within or outside Nigeria as may be required of them by, or under the authority of this or any other Act.
24. (1)In addition to the powers of arrest without warrant conferred upon a police officer by Section 10 of the Criminal Procedure Act, it shall be lawful for any police officer and any person whom he may call to his assistance, to arrest without warrant in the following cases-
(a) any person whom he finds committing any felony, misdemeanour or simple offence, or whom he reasonably suspects of having committed or of being about to commit any felony, misdemeanour or breach of the peace;
(b) any person whom any other person charges with having committed a felony or misdemeanor;
(c) any person whom any other person- (i) suspects of having committed a felony or misdemeanor; or (ii) charges with having committed a simple offence, if such other person is willing to accompany the police officer to the police station and to enter into a recognisance to prosecute such charge.
(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any offence with respect to which it is provided that any offender may not be arrested without warrant.
(3) For the purposes of this section the expression felony, misdemeanor and simple offence shall have the same meanings as they have in the Criminal Code.
Section 34 (1) of the Constitution provides that:
“34. (1) Every individual is entitled to respect for the dignity of his person, and accordingly –
(a) No person shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment;
(b) no person shall he held in slavery or servitude; and

Before Our Lordships:

Ignatius Igwe Agube Justice of the Court of Appeal

Misitura Omodere Bolaji-Yusuff Justice of the Court of Appeal

Abubakar Sadiq Umar Justice of the Court of Appeal

Between

1. PASTOR DAN OBINEGBO 2. PASTOR ONYEKA OGBONNA 3. PASTOR EJIKE ANIOKO 4. PASTOR RAPHAEL UDECHUKWU 5. EVANGELIST UCHECHUKWU ALUO 6. EVANGELIST CHIMA CHIGBO 7. ELDER EMEKA CHUMA 8. MISS CHIDIMMA CHUKWU APPELANT(S)

And

1. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE 2. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE, ENUGU STATE 3. INSP. CHRISTOPHER ODUGU O/C X SQUAD 4. CPL. NDUBUISI NWANGA 5. CPL. INNOCENT CHUKWUJI 6. CPL. FIDELIS ONAGA 7. MR. MARK NGENE 8. MR. BERNARD NWOYE RESPONDENT(S)

MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, J.C.A. (Delivering the Leading Judgment): This is an appeal against the judgment of the Federal High Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered in Suit No. FHC/EN/CS/289/2015 on 19/1/2017. The appellants instituted a fundamental right enforcement proceeding wherein they sought for the following reliefs:
1. “A declaration that the arrest and detention of the applicants by the respondents is unlawful, unconstitutional and therefore an infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to personal liberty as enshrined in Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
2. A declaration that the barging into the room of the 8th applicant by the 4th respondent without regard to the 8th applicant’s privacy tantamount to an infringement of her fundamental right to private life as guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
3. A declaration that the actions of the 3rd to 5th respondents in dragging the 1st and 8th applicants along the street barely naked tantamount to an infringement of their fundamental right to dignity of the human person as enshrined under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
4. A declaration that the actions of the 3rd to 5th respondents in dragging the applicants on the ground, beating them up and hand cuffing them before taking them to the police station tantamount to an infringement of the applicants’ fundamental right to dignity of the human person as guaranteed under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).
5. An order compelling the respondents to tender a public apology to be published in 2 National newspapers to the applicants for the violation of the applicants’ fundamental right to personal liberty.
6. An order compelling the respondents jointly and severally to pay the applicants the sum of N25,000.000 (Twenty Five Million Naira) as compensation for the gross violation of the applicants’ fundamental right to personal liberty, private and family life and dignity of the human person.
7. And for such further or other Order(s) as the Honourable Court may deem fit to make in the circumstance of this case.”<br< p=”” style=”box-sizing: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;”>

</br<>

The application was supported by an affidavit and further affidavits. The respondents filed counter affidavits in response to the affidavits of the appellants. Both parties filed and exchanged written addresses which they adopted as their arguments. The Court below in its considered judgment held that the appellants failed to make out a case of violation of their fundamental rights and consequently dismissed their application.

Dissatisfied with the judgment, the appellants filed a notice of appeal against the judgment on 2/3/2017. The 4 grounds of appeal contained in the notice of appeal are:
GROUND 1 ERROR IN LAW
“The learned trial judge erred in law and thereby came to a wrong decision which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he held that:
“The applicants have failed to make out a case of violation of Fundamental rights in any of the reliefs sought.“
GROUND 2 MISDIRECTION
The learned trial judge misdirected himself and thereby came to a wrong decision which occasioned a miscarriage of justice when he held:
“The applicants have not shown any evidence that the police arrested or detained them other than for the purpose of investigating an allegation of crime.”
GROUND 3 ERROR IN LAW
The learned trial judge erred in law when he held that the fact that the applicants were released on the same day they were arrested is an indication that their fundamental right was not violated.
GROUND 4 OMNIBUS GROUND
The judgment is against the weight of evidence.”

The appellant’s brief of argument was filed on 19/4/2018. The 1st – 6th respondent’s brief of argument was filed on 26/3/2019. The 7th and 8th respondents brief was filed on 10/4/2019. Appellants reply brief was filed on 10/10/2019. All the briefs were deemed as properly filed and served on 30/6/20.

The appellants formulated the following sole issue for the determination of this appeal:
“Whether the mere fact that the appellants were arrested in the morning and released in the evening of the same day absorbed the respondents from any infraction of the appellants’ fundamental rights to human dignity, unlawful arrest and detention necessitating the intervention and pronouncement of this honourable Court on the propriety or other wise of such act.”

The respondents also formulated the following sole issue for determination of this appeal:
“Whether the Honourable Court was right when it held that fundamental rights of the appellants were not violated.”

I have considered the judgment of the Court below, the grounds of appeal and the issues formulated by counsel to both parties. I find the issues to be apt for the determination of this appeal. The issues shall be considered as follows:
1.“Whether the Honourable Court was right when it held that fundamental rights of the appellants were not violated.”
2. “Whether the mere fact that the appellants were arrested in the morning and released in the evening of the same day absolved the respondents from any infraction of the appellants’ fundamental rights to human dignity, unlawful arrest and detention necessitating the intervention and pronouncement of this honourable Court on the propriety or other wise of such act.”

On issue 1, the appellants’ counsel submitted that the Court below having found that the appellants were arrested and detained by the respondents and the respondents having failed to prove that the arrest and detention of the appellants was justified, the Court below ought to have found in favour of the appellants. He further submitted that the respondents were unable to justify the unlawful arrest, beating, hand-cuffing, humiliation and detention of the appellants. It is submitted that the 7th and 8th respondents having written a malicious petition to the 1st – 6th respondents, the 1st – 6th respondents ought to have investigated the allegation before infringing on the rights of the appellants. He referred toDSS V. AGBAKOBA (1999) 3 NWLR (PT.595) 314 AT 357 (F-A), 371 (A-E). NWADINOBI V. BOTU (2002) FWLR (PT.96) 450 AT 458. EDOSOMWAN V. OGBEIFUN & ANOR. (1983) 1 FNR 10 AT 104-105.

The arguments of the 1st – 6th respondents and 7th and 8th respondents are similar, though they filed separate briefs. The respondents’ counsel submitted that the appellants have not shown by credible evidence that their rights were breached by 1st – 6th respondents who merely discharged their lawful duties to investigate allegation of commission of crime contained in a letter dated 3rd April, 2014 attached to the 1st – 6th respondents’ counter-affidavit as Exhibit ‘A’. It is further submitted that the fact that there are pending suits cannot rob the police of their powers to investigate and prosecute where a crime is alleged to have been committed. He referred to NZEWI & ORS. V. C. O. P. (2002) 2 HRLRA 156 AT 164. A. G. ANAMBRA STATE V. UBA (2005) 33 WRN 191. UZOR KALU V. FRN (2016) 65 NSCQR (PT.3) AT 1312. It is the contention of the respondents that the appellants were unable to show the Court below that any suit was pending as they failed to exhibit any document before the Court and the Court is not entitled to embark on a voyage of discovery or engage in speculation. They referred to AKPABIO & 2 ORS. V. THE STATE (1994) 7-8 SCNJ AT 464. It is further contended that paragraphs 11-16 of the appellants’ affidavit in support and paragraphs 11-16 of the further affidavit sharply contradicts each other and a material contradiction which goes to the root of a party’s case is fatal to that party’s case. They referred to IDOKO OCHANI V. STATE (2017) 70 NSCQR (PT.4) AT 1636-1637 (G-H), IKECHUKWU IKPA V. THE STATE (2017) 71 NSCQR (PT.2) AT 481, KAYILI V. YILBUK (2015) 61 NSCQR 359 AT 449-450.

In reply, the appellants’ counsel submitted that the 1st – 6th respondents in carrying out their lawful duty to arrest acted outside the bounds of the law when they invaded the appellants’ house, dragged them out almost naked to the full glare of the public, beat them and pushed them into their vehicle. He referred to UKATA & ORS V. AKPANOWO & ORS. (2016) LPELR-41249 (CA). He submitted that the respondents should not be allowed to enjoy the protection of Sections 2 and 24 of the Police Act where they acted outside the bound of the law.

RESOLUTION:
The law is sacrosanct that the burden of proving the arrest and detention of a person is on the party who assert that he was arrested and detained. Once that burden is satisfactorily discharged or the arrest and detention of a person is admitted by the arresting authority, the burden shifts on the arresting authority to prove that the arrest and detention is lawful. See ENE & ORS. V. BASSEY & ORS. (2014) LPELR-23524 (CA) AT 23-24 (F-B), NNORUGA & ORS. V. ENIOWO & ORS. (2015) LPELR-24273 (CA) AT 15-16 (E-A). The respondents having admitted that the appellants were arrested and detained, the burden was on them to prove that the arrest was lawful.

</br<>

(c) no person shall be required to perform forced of compulsory labour.”
The law is settled that in exercising their powers under the law, the arresting authority must act strictly within the confines of the law. Implicit in the powers of the police or any law enforcement agent to arrest or apprehend a person upon a suspicion of having committed a crime is the duty and responsibility to scrutinize any complaint laid before them and to be reasonably satisfied that there is a ground to proceed on an investigation of a complaint. To justify the arrest and detention of the appellants, the 1st – 6th respondents relied on the letter written by the 7th and 8th respondents. A dispassionate reading of the letter shows clearly that the whole dispute between the appellants and the 7th and 8th respondents is about land. On their own showing, the matter was already before the Court. The allegation against the 1st appellant was that despite the order of interim injunction granted by the Court in suit no. E/453/2000 restraining him from entering the land in dispute, he went ahead and demolished the properties of Umu-Ugwu Community on the land. The purpose of the letter was clearly stated in the last paragraph at pages 47-48 of the record as follows:
“We request for the arrest and prosecution of this man, for unwarranted demolition of our clients’ property, acts of continued trespass and conduct likely to cause breach of public peace, since we were equally informed by our clients that you have on one occasion requested the said pastor to tender his evidence of ownership of the land in dispute which he has not done.
Sir, we count on the high integrity of your office to rescue us from this all powerful pastor and his cohorts.”

The Court below considered the materials before the Court and held as follows at pages 92-93 of the record:
“From available facts presented by the respondents, the police acted on a petition written the 3rd day of April, 2015 alleging commission of crime by the applicants.
The police have a duty to investigate any crime and are empowered to do so under Section 35 (1) (c) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 Constitution (as amended) see the Supreme Court case of Fawehinmi v. Inspector General of Police (2005) 1 N CC (pt.414) page 430 paragraph C.
From the available facts, the 7th and 8th respondents acted as a pointer to police.

It is trite law that whatever act done after the report of an alleged crime to the police is the act of the police see the case of John Duru V. Patricia Nwangwu & Ors (2006) 5 SC (pr.111) page 70 and not that of the respondent.
The applicants have not shown any evidence that the police arrested or detained them other than for the purpose of investigating an allegation of crime.
In view of the foregoing, the applicants have failed to make out a case of violation of Fundamental Rights in any of the reliefs sought. I am therefore unable to find in favour of his(sic) application and i so hold.”

The 7th and 8th respondents did not merely report the alleged act of trespass on the land in dispute, they ensured that appellants were arrested. The act of the 7th and 8th respondents was intentional and it caused the arrest and detention of the appellants. In paragraph 12 of the 1st – 6th respondents counter affidavit, they stated that:
12. “That the facts of the matter are as follows:
(a) That on 9th of July, 2014 a complaint in form of petition dated 3rd April, 2014 was made to the Commissioner of Police, Enugu State Command, who minuted same to the State C.I.D Enugu for investigation. The petition is herby annexed and marked Exhibit “A”.
(b) That the Asst. Commissioner of Police in charge of State C.I.D Enugu in turn minuted same to our section for proper investigation.
(c) The petition was against the 1st applicant.
(d) Upon receipt of the petition, we made efforts through several invitations to make the 1st applicant come and respond to the petition to no avail.
(e) From July 2014 when the petition reached our office till April 2015 when the applicants were arrested, the 1st applicant evaded arrest and turned down all our invitations to him.
(f) That while the 1st applicant was evading arrest, another petition from the same petitioners came to our office alleged (sic) that the 1st applicant and the members of his church kidnapped a member of their village and tied him to a tree and was rescued by police from Awkunanaw Division. A copy of that petition dated 7th day of July 2014 is hereby annexed marked Exhibit “B”. That after several attempts to arrest the 1st applicant failed, we obtained a warrant to arrest him. Annexed and marked Exhibit C.

(g) When it became obvious that the 1st applicant is bent on frustrating our proper investigation of allegations made against,(sic) we decided to go back on the said date.
(h) When we got there, we were as usual told by the 2nd to 8th applicants whom we met outside the building that the 1st applicant was not around. Not suspecting that he was hiding, we decide to go back as we have always done each time we were told that the 1st applicant wasn’t around.
(i) While on our way back, we noticed that the 8th respondent wasn’t in the bus with us, we decided to go back and pick him before the 2nd and 8th applicants will linch him. On our getting back there, we saw the 1st applicant standing at the balcony upstairs.
(j) When the 2nd to 8th respondents saw that we were back, they quickly tried to close their gate so that we will not gain entrance into the building.
(k) We tried and stopped them from closing the gate against us. And when they saw that we were bent at arresting the 1st applicant, they employed measures within their reach to stop us from arresting him including beating some of our officers.
(l) That while the 1st applicant was arrested in respect of the petition made against him by the 7th and 8th respondents, the 2nd to 8th respondents were arrested for obstruction and serious assault on police officers who were performing their lawful duty.
(m) When the applicants saw that they were about to be charged to court, they brought some influential persons who approached the then Commissioner of Police Adamu Abubakar to allow the applicants settle with the complaints.
(n) That consequent upon the appeals by those hired by the applicants to intercede on their behalf, the Commissioner of Police brought both parties together and advised them to embrace peace and then instructed us to allow parties settle their differences.
(o) That instead of making good their appeals to allow them settle with the complaint, the applicants came up with this suit.
(p) Ever since they were allowed to settle with the complaint as they requested, the applicant refused to attend our office again despite repeated invitations.”

The 1st -6th respondents did not state how the 1st appellant was invited. From the content of the letter upon which the 1st – 6th respondents purportedly acted, the 1st appellant is not a stranger to the police. He had responded to the police invitations on previous occasions and this is confirmed in his further affidavit which was not denied by the respondents. From the facts disclosed in the affidavits of both parties, I do not agree with the Court below that the appellants failed to show that the police arrested and detained them other than for the purpose of investigating a crime. In any case, the burden of proving that the appellants were arrested for the purpose of investigating a crime was on the respondents which they failed to discharge. Exhibit A which is the plank upon which they relied for the justification of the arrest and detention of the appellants cannot avail them. Issue 1 is resolved in favour of the appellants.

On issue 2, the appellants’ counsel submitted that the decision of the Court below that there was no infraction of the appellants’ fundamental rights because they were arrested and released on the same day is at variance with all known principles of natural justice and rule of law. He referred to ALABOH V. BOYES (1984) 5 NCLR 830.

It is further submitted that the 1st -6th respondents ought to have investigated the allegation in the petition before infringing on the rights of the appellants.

In response, the respondents’ counsel submitted that the intendment of Section 35(4) and (5) of the 1999 Constitution is that a person arrested and taken into custody should not be detained more than necessary and the rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not absolute rights. It is further submitted that the appellants’ rights were not violated as they were promptly informed of the offence alleged against them and they made statements to the police and were subsequently released on bail same day.

RESOLUTION:
Section 35(6) of the Constitution provides that any person who is unlawfully arrested or detained shall be entitled to compensation and public apology from the appropriate person. In the instant case, even if the appellants were suspected or accused of having committed a crime, the 1st – 6th respondents in effecting their arrest has a duty to ensure that the appellant’s right to dignity is not infringed. The appellants described graphically the way and manner they were arrested and humiliated which the respondents denied. However, paragraphs 12(h) and (i) of the 1st-6th respondents’ counter affidavit raised a red flag against the denial of the respondents. If it is true that the respondents went to the appellants’ premises and were informed that the 1st respondent was not around and they left peacefully as they wanted the Court to believe, how come they left the 8th respondents behind and why did they come to the conclusion that the 8th respondent would be linched by the appellants. In my view, the respondents are economical with the truth. Section 34(1) (a) of the Constitution provides that no person shall be subjected to torture or inhuman or degrading treatment. The way and manner the appellants’ premises were invaded and what they were subjected to amount a degrading treatment. The court below was wrong when it held at page 92 of the record that:
“That the applicants were arrested on the strength of Exhibits A to C. It is my belief that an arrest by the police and being released on the same day does not amount to a breach of fundamental right in the light of Section 35(5) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”
The law is sacrosanct that an unlawful arrest no matter how short entitles the applicant to compensation. See ARULOGUN V. C. O. P, LAGOS STATE & ORS. (2016) LPELR-40190 (CA) AT 19-20 (E-A), SKYE BANK V. NJOKU & ORS (2016) LPELR-40447 (CA). In the instant case, in addition to the arrest and detention of the appellants being unlawful, they were subjected to degrading and inhuman treatment. The Court below was wrong when it held that the appellant failed to establish a violation of any of their fundamental rights.
Section 46(1) of the Constitution provides that:
“(1) Any person who alleges that any of the provisions of this Chapter has been, is being or likely to be contravened in any State in relation to him may apply to a High Court in that State for redress.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, a High Court shall have original jurisdiction to hear and determine any application made to it in pursuance of the provisions of this section and may make such orders, issue such writs and give such directions as it may consider appropriate for the purpose of enforcing or securing the enforcement within that State of any right to which the person who makes the application may be entitled under this Chapter.”

Having taken all the above into consideration, the way and manner the appellants were arrested, subjected to inhuman treatment, disgraced and harassed, I hereby award a sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) in favour of the appellants jointly and against the respondents jointly and severally.

In conclusion, this appeal succeeds. The judgment of the Federal High Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered in suit no FHC/EN/CS/289/2015 is hereby set aside. In its place, judgment is hereby entered in favour of the appellants as follows:
1.It is hereby declared that the arrest and detention of the applicants by the respondents is unlawful, unconstitutional and an infringement of the appellants’ fundamental right to personal liberty as enshrined in Section 35 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
2. It is hereby declared that the barging into the room of the 8th appellant by the 4th respondent without regard to the 8th appellant’s privacy tantamount to an infringement of her fundamental right to private life as guaranteed under Section 37 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.
3.It is hereby declared that the actions of the 3rd to 6th respondents in dragging the 1st and 8th appellants along the street barely naked tantamount to an infringement of their fundamental right to dignity of the human person as enshrined under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (As Amended).
4. It is hereby declared that the actions of the 3rd to 6th respondents in dragging the appellants on the ground, beating them up and hand cuffing them before taking them to the police station tantamount to an infringement of the appellants’ fundamental right to dignity of the human person as guaranteed under Section 34 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (As Amended).
5. A sum of N5,000,000 (Five Million Naira) is awarded in favour of the appellants jointly and against the respondents jointly and severally for the violation of the appellant’s fundamental rights.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.

IGNATIUS IGWE AGUBE, J.C.A.: I have had a preview of the lead judgment just delivered by my learned brother MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA. All the pertinent issues to the instant appeal matter have been exhaustively and meticulously dealt with and duly resolved in the said lead judgment. Indeed, I have nothing to add thereto. Thus, I agree with the reasoning and conclusion of my learned brother that the Appeal succeeds. I also adopt them as mine. I abide by the consequential orders made therein, inclusive of the one made with regard to costs.

ABUBAKAR SADIQ UMAR, J.C.A.: I had the opportunity of reading in advance, the well-considered judgment of my learned brother, MISITURA OMODERE BOLAJI-YUSUFF, JCA just delivered. I agree with the reasoning and conclusion contained therein.

I find myself in accord with his reasoning that this appeal succeeds and same is hereby allowed. The judgment of the Federal High Court, Enugu Judicial Division delivered in suit No: FHC/EN/CS/289/2015 is hereby set aside. I abide by the consequential order made in the lead judgment.
Parties shall bear their respective costs.

Appearances:

Dr. G. O. Okafor with him, C. E. Obieze For Appellant(s)

Ubok Ameh with him, Chidinma Dim and C. O Ugwu for the 1st – 6th Respondents.
L .U. Ikpa (Mrs) for the 7th and 8th Respondents. For Respondent(s)